Queen Camilla of Australia?

February 15, 2005 — 11.00am

A morganatic marriage is being proposed. But Australia has to agree, writes Gerard Henderson.

Thank God, Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles (despite rumours to the contrary) is not a Catholic. Otherwise there would be no suggestion of a marriage between Prince Charles and his mistress of long standing. The 1701 Act of Settlement, which prohibits a Catholic from acceding to the throne, and which prevents the heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic, is still on Britain's statute books.

The Prince of Wales, as a single man, is free to enter into any heterosexual union, provided a Catholic is not involved.

Advertisement

Even a marriage of the morganatic kind. In his authoritative study The Monarchy and the Constitution, the British constitutional historian Vernon Bogdanor defined a morganatic marriage as "one in which the wife of the sovereign and any children who may be born of the marriage are denied royal status and all the claims or privileges that go with it".

For the past 1000 years, the wife of the British king has always had the title of queen. In a statement posted on the Prince's Clarence House website last Thursday, it was announced that "Mrs Parker Bowles will use the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall after marriage" and that "it is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne". There was, however, no mention of the "m" word.

Yet, after seven decades on the constitutional interchange bench, the concept of a morganatic marriage is back in the news. In 1936 Edward VIII proposed to the British government that he be allowed to enter into a morganatic union with the American-born divorcee Wallis Simpson.

The idea was rejected by the British Conservative government, led by Stanley Baldwin, and by a clear majority of what were then called the Dominions (including Canada, Australia and New Zealand). After the rejection of his proposal, Edward VIII abdicated and was succeeded by his younger brother, who became George VI (Queen Elizabeth's father).

According to the Clarence House statement, it is "intended" that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title the "Princess Consort" when Charles becomes king. Despite what some Australian commentators have suggested, this event will occur - provided, of course, that the Prince of Wales outlives his mother. There is no evidence of any kind that the Queen will abdicate or that, in such a situation, Charles would pass on his kingdom to his elder son, William.

The move to establish the Duchess of Cornwall as Princess Consort would, in effect, amount to a morganatic marriage - in that the wife of the king would be denied full royal status. This would almost certainly require legislation in the British Parliament and, presumably, would involve formal consultations with those members of the Commonwealth of Nations that happen to be constitutional monarchies.

The royal family is embedded in British culture and history. From a British perspective, the constitutional monarchy makes a lot of sense. However, it is quite an anomaly that Australia is involved in the constitutional implications of a marriage between two Brits - neither of whom has shown much interest in Australia.

Charles has not visited Australia since 1994. It seems that he was already disillusioned with Australia by then, following Bob Hawke's rejection of his overtures to become Governor-General of Australia. Charles was naive in making an offer in the first place. It is impossible to imagine an Australian government in the late 1980s, either Coalition or Labor, appointing a British citizen/resident as Australian governor-general. If Charles had understood contemporary Australia, he would not have placed himself in a situation where a refusal offends.

Charles will never be Australia's governor-general. Yet he is next in line to become Australia's head of state. In which case his wife will become the King of Australia's Princess Consort or, more likely, the Queen - assuming the morganatic option is not taken up and Clarence House's current "intention" does not become a fact of (constitutional) life.

In spite of what many constitutional monarchists Down Under argue, the monarch is Australia's head of state. As recently as 1997, the Buckingham Palace website stated this, declaring: "A Commonwealth realm is a country where the Queen is the head of state. The Queen is Queen not only of Britain and its dependent territories but also of the following realms." Included in the list was Australia.

The monarchists in Australia objected to the Queen's very own job description and the statement was removed by Buckingham Palace - intent, as ever, on avoiding political controversy.

In The Monarchy and the Constitution Bogdanor wrote: "In Australia the governor-general performs nearly all of the functions of a head of state but is not himself or herself a head of state." Bogdanor made it clear that "the sovereign is the head of state" of Australia, among other nations.

Michael Jeffery understands this reality. He recently told journalist Bruce Stannard: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role." (Canberra Times, 6/11/04.) Quite so. It is the fact that Charles is next in line to become Australia's head of state that involves Australia in the constitutional saga about Charles formalising his personal arrangements with a long-time flame.

It seems odd that Australia is constitutionally involved in debates over kings or queens of a foreign nation. The British, like the Americans, are long-term friends and allies. But this is no reason Australia should not have an Australian head of state who just might be a Catholic but who would never be married to a consort.